Re: future of ocfs2
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:10:50 -0600
I have actually had very good experiences with OCFS2. I normally only put the data files there, not the binaries, but I havent had any real problems with it at all. I find it more flexible than ASM
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Jeremy Schneider < jeremy.schneider_at_ardentperf.com> wrote:
> At the company where I'm working right now, I'm part of an architecture
> effort to come up with our standard design for RAC on Linux across the firm.
> There will be dozens or possibly hundreds of deployments globally using the
> design we settle on.
> We're internally debating whether or not we should include OCFS2 in this
> design right now, and I'm curious if anyone has arguments one way or the
> other to share. Our standard design on Solaris does utilize a cluster
> filesystem and we would welcome a similar design, but there are some
> concerns about the readiness, stability and future of OCFS2.
> OCFS2 is being considered for these four use cases:
> - database binaries (vs local files or NFS)
> - diag top (11g) or admin tree (10g) (vs local files or NFS)
> - archived logs
> - backups
> Other files will be stored in ASM.
> I have seen mention in blogs such as http://bigdaveroberts.wordpress.com/of something called ASMFS in 11gR2 and I'm wondering - will this feature (if
> included) have any impact on Oracle's commitment to OCFS2 development? Could
> Oracle conceivably develop a whole new cluster filesystem and put their full
> weight behind it as they did for ASM storage, leaving OCFS2 as a lower
> priority for new features and improvements? Has Oracle demonstrated
> significant commitment to OCFS2 development and support in the past, and is
> this a mature enough technology for wide-scale deployment?
> Just looking for opinions. :)
> Jeremy Schneider
> Chicago, IL
-- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.' -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Feb 06 2009 - 08:10:50 CST